Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations supply the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the target block is replaced entirely while others are untouched, and every value is validated against the portal's live directories before writing (pipeline exists, stage belongs to that pipeline, field in directory, assignee in list).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but front-loaded: mapping purpose, form differences, block taxonomy, mutation/validation semantics, then lookup references. Every sentence carries information, though it is somewhat crowded and could trim its overlap with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and annotation coverage of the safety profile, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (full-block replacement, live validation, block taxonomy) plus the lookup tools. It is nearly complete, only falling slightly short on return/side-effect specifics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including block meanings, active-list semantics, and the 'Lead #номер' title fallback. The description largely duplicates this content rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource (mapping quiz fields to amoCRM fields) and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling manage_quiz_crm_mapping (Bitrix24) in the closing sentence. It also enumerates the three blocks (deal/list/task) and their meanings, so an agent can tell it apart from neighboring CRM tools without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing rules: Bitrix24 is configured by a separate tool, field names and pipeline numbers come from get_quiz_crm_fields, and question IDs come from quiz://{id}/structure. It also states the operational constraint 'one block per call'. Both the alternative tool and the correct data sources are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.